Revise Influences on the curriculum for Cambridge 9699 (5.3)

The formal or overt curriculum refers to the planned programme of teaching and learning, comprising the subjects and content that are officially taught in schools. In many countries, including the UK with its National Curriculum, the state plays a central role in determining this content. This control is not neutral; it reflects the ideology of the ruling political party. For example, Conservative governments have often emphasised a 'traditional' curriculum focused on a specific version of national history, core knowledge, and academic subjects, sometimes at the expense of vocational or creative ones. This process of selection means that what counts as 'knowledge' is socially constructed. Certain subjects and topics are included while others are excluded, shaping pupils' understanding of the world in a way that serves governmental aims, such as promoting a particular national identity or economic agenda.

Distinct from the formal curriculum, the 'hidden curriculum' consists of the unstated lessons, values, and norms that pupils learn through the experience of attending school. These are not taught explicitly but are embedded in the everyday routines, structures, and social relationships of the school environment. Examples include learning to accept hierarchy (obeying teachers), the importance of punctuality (adhering to timetables), and valuing competition over collaboration (through individual testing and grading). Marxist sociologists like Bowles and Gintis argue this is a key mechanism for social reproduction, preparing working-class pupils for their future role as a compliant, exploited workforce. It teaches conformity and deference to authority, which benefits the capitalist system by creating docile workers who will not challenge their exploitation.

A significant ideological influence on the curriculum is ethnocentrism. An ethnocentric curriculum is one that reflects the culture of the dominant ethnic group while disregarding or devaluing the cultures of minority groups. Sociologists like Bernard Coard (1971) argued that the British curriculum was ethnocentric, presenting a version of history that glorified the British Empire while ignoring the perspectives and histories of colonised peoples. This can be seen in the prioritisation of 'White, European' literature, languages, and historical figures. The impact of an ethnocentric curriculum can be profound, leading to cultural alienation and low self-esteem among minority ethnic pupils, which may contribute to their underachievement. It reinforces a racial hierarchy and validates the dominant culture as superior, thereby reproducing inequality.

Feminist sociologists argue that both the formal and hidden curricula are patriarchal, reinforcing gender inequality. They point to several areas of concern. Firstly, subject choice and curriculum content are often gendered. For example, subjects like Physics and Computing are male-dominated, while Sociology and Health and Social Care are female-dominated, channelling girls and boys into different career paths. Secondly, curriculum materials, particularly in subjects like History and Science, have traditionally rendered women invisible. Heaton and Lawson (1996) refer to this as the 'woman-less' curriculum, where the achievements of men are celebrated while those of women are ignored. This lack of visible role models can limit girls' aspirations and reinforce the idea that certain fields are not for them, perpetuating gender divisions in society.